Clean Energy Investing - Framework

1y ago
1.62 MB
54 Pages
Last View : 7d ago
Last Download : 5m ago
Upload by : Lee Brooke

Clean Energy Investing:Global Comparison of Investment ReturnsMarch 2021A Joint Report by the International Energy Agency and the Centre forClimate Finance & Investment

Table of Contents03Executive Summary05Introduction08Analytical Methods11Key Investment Characteristics14Results14Global Markets18Advanced Economies19Emerging Market and Developing Economies20China21Transition Companies22The Covid Market Shock24Irrational Exuberance?26Conclusions29Acknowledgments30Annex A – Definition of Key Terms32Annex B – IEA Scenarios33Annex C – Fama-French Five-Factor Model34Annex D – Fossil Fuel Portfolio48Annex E – Renewable Power Portfolio2

Executive SummaryTo shed light on the long-term prospects for clean energy, we investigate the historical financialperformance of energy companies around the world in search of broad structural trends.This is the second in a series of joint reports by the International Energy Agency and Imperial CollegeBusiness School examining the risk and return proposition in energy transitions. In this paper, weextend our coverage of publicly-traded renewable power and fossil fuel companies to the following:1) global markets, 2) advanced economies, 3) emerging market and developing economies, and 4)China. We calculate the total return and annualized volatility of these portfolios over 5 and 10-yearperiods. Table 1 shows the 5 and 10-year results, up to December 31, 2020.Table 1 – Summary of Key FindingsGlobal Markets PortfoliosFossil FuelAdvanced Economies PortfoliosRenewable Power10 YearsFossil FuelRenewable Power10 YearsTotal Return59.0%422.7%Total Return31.6%727.0%Arithmetic Return69.8%189.1%Arithmetic d Volatility6.3%6.2%Annualised Volatility8.0%6.3%Sharpe Ratio0.300.86Sharpe Ratio0.221.06Beta1.311.08Beta1.611.195 Years5 YearsTotal Return59.3%186.6%Total Return52.9%501.6%Arithmetic Return62.7%116.8%Arithmetic d Volatility7.3%6.1%Annualised Volatility9.7%6.4%Sharpe Ratio0.451.06Sharpe Ratio0.391.69Beta1.481.08Beta1.871.18Fossil FuelRenewable PowerEmerging Market and Developing Economies PortfoliosFossil FuelChina PortfoliosRenewable Power10 Years10 YearsTotal Return113.8%136.0%Total Return41.1%243.5%Arithmetic Return93.7%114.9%Arithmetic Return59.3%167.3%AAR7.9%9.0%AAR3.5%13.1%Annualised Volatility5.4%6.9%Annualised Volatility6.4%8.6%Sharpe Ratio0.470.46Sharpe Ratio0.240.54Beta0.901.01Beta0.770.865 Years5 YearsTotal Return164.9%121.2%Total Return-7.8%29.0%Arithmetic Return108.2%92.3%Arithmetic Return2.6%41.4%AAR21.5%17.2%AAR-1.6%5.2%Annualised Volatility5.7%6.4%Annualised Volatility5.9%7.4%Sharpe Ratio1.030.78Sharpe Ratio-0.030.28Beta0.910.97Beta0.830.96Across all portfolios, renewable power generated higher total returns relative to fossil fuel.Annualized volatility (a measure of investment risk) for the renewable power was lower than fossilfuel in the global and advanced economies portfolios, but higher in the China and emerging marketand developing economies portfolios.We analyze the impact of credit conditions and commodity prices on renewable energy and fossilfuel investment portfolios over the past decade. Our work also includes a correlation analysis. Theglobal renewable power portfolio was observed to be less correlated to the broader market than theglobal fossil fuel portfolio. The correlation of the reference renewable power portfolio fell during amarket downturn, indicating a potential diversification benefit.3

Given that some of the largest renewables developers in today’s market are not included in ourrenewable portfolios (due to the dilutive impact of their non-renewables activities), we also explorethe performance of power companies with investment strategies and business models in transition.We find that some companies have outperformed the market benchmark in recent years. The subtlenuances of shifts in underlying business models points to a need for more standardised, granular dataon underlying segments. This call for better data and analysis applies to all energy companies, butmost notably those moving towards more diversified business models.In 2020, unprecedented economic conditions caused by the coronavirus pandemic led todeteriorating fundamentals in the energy sector. Renewable power portfolios have been resilientduring the pandemic, having held up better than fossil fuel companies during a period of severe stressand volatility. Some of this divergence was driven by cyclical factors, such as lower demand and pricesfor oil. However, structural trends associated with longer-term market and policy shifts towards moresustainable energy systems have also contributed.To address concerns over the role of fund flows in driving price inflation in renewables companyvaluations, we examine the total assets and trading activity of passive vehicles that invest inrenewables equities. While passive fund flows may have contributed to the increase in share prices,we observe that most passive vehicles do not have the breadth or depth of our constructed portfolios.Associated inflows benefitted only a fraction of our universe of companies.Overall, our analysis demonstrates a superior risk and returns profile for renewable power in bothnormal market conditions and amidst recent events. This performance has implications for not justinvestors, but also for policymakers as they seek to strike a balance between concerns about climatechange, financial stability, and economic growth.4

IntroductionThe Covid-19 pandemic continues to cast a veil of uncertainty over the future of energy and, with it,the ability of governments, companies, and consumers to accelerate clean energy transitions andput emissions into structural decline.1 Energy demand declined by around 5% in 2020, with the fallsconcentrated among the more carbon-intensive fuels. However, a slump in capital expenditure acrossall sectors in energy creates the potential for capital shortfalls – just at the moment when a dramaticincrease in funding towards clean energy is needed to meet sustainability goals.2The pandemic reduced global CO2 emissions in 2020 by an estimated 7%. There is considerableuncertainty about the extent and pace of any rebound in emissions, although recent IEA analysisshowed that, by December 2020, these emissions were already edging higher than a year earlier.3However, what is clear is that the world is still a long way from a sustainable recovery. In the IEA'sStated Policies Scenario, based on today's policy settings and steady recovery of economic activityto pre-crisis levels in 2021, the world's CO2 emissions rise to 36 Gigatons (Gt) in 2030. By contrast,the IEA's Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS) maps out a course to meet climate, clean air, andenergy access goals in which emissions peak and decline to less than 27 Gt by 2030. Investment andpolicy decisions over the next decade will play a critical role in determining the world's ability to alignwith this pathway.Although a thorough transformation to meet climate goals would need to encompass all sectors of theenergy economy, we focus in this paper on the performance of renewables in the power sector. Thepower sector is not just the largest source of global CO2 emissions, but also a sector that will need togrow substantially over the next few decades to meet increasing electricity demand – coming not justfrom traditional sources but also from the electrification of new end-uses such as transportation.Moving to a cleaner and more resilient electricity system will require rapid progress in the mobilisationof capital for renewable sources of generation, as well as enabling infrastructure and system flexibility,and improvements in efficiency. In the IEA’s SDS, low-carbon sources account for almost two-thirds oftotal electricity generation worldwide by 2030. Achieving this would require more than three-quartersof the total annual 3 trillion in energy investment to go towards clean energy and electricity networks.The implications of such a dramatic shift raises critical questions for investors. Renewable powerrequires large upfront investment and the cost of capital makes up a significant part of the lifecyclecosts. On average, renewable power projects in emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs)face a higher cost of capital than the projects in advanced economies (AEs).4 By contrast, fossilfuel-related sectors are more dependent on operating expenditures, with a lower share of upfrontfinance. In EMDEs, these fossil fuel investments are also carried out more by state-owned enterprises,who typically enjoy better access to finance than private-sector developers.5 The relative lack oftransparency regarding the cost of capital for renewables projects (particularly in emerging markets)creates financial risks for investors and economic challenges for policymakers.The availability of more asset-level data could boost investor demand for renewables. There ispotentially a virtuous cycle whereby a reduction in information asymmetries attracts a broader range offinancial institutions, thereby creating more favourable financing conditions.61IEA and CCFI (2020), Energy Investing: Exploring risk and return in the capital markets. IEA and CCFI.2IEA (2020), World Energy Outlook 2020. IEA.3IEA (2021), Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2020. IEA.Steffen, B. (2020). Estimating the cost of capital for renewable energy projects. Energy Economics, 88, 104783. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2020.10478345IEA (2020), World Energy Investment 2020. IEA.Egli, F., Steffen, B., & Schmidt, T. S. (2018). A dynamic analysis of financing conditions for renewable energy technologies.Nature Energy, 3(12), 1084-1092. doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0277-y65

GWFigure 1. Power generation capacity under Stated Policies and the Sustainable Development Scenario, 2020–406 000HistoricalStatedPolicies5 000SustainableDevelopmentSolar PV4 000Wind3 000Natural gasHydro2 0001 0002000201020202030204020202030CoalBattery storageOther renewablesNuclearOil2040Source: IEA World Energy Outlook (2020)There is growing evidence of the affordability of a transition away from reliance on fossil fuel for powergeneration. The cost of solar PV and wind power generation has decreased in the past five yearsaround the world – enabled by technology gains, revenue support mechanisms and lower financingcosts. Supported by improved financing terms for debt and equity, utility-scale solar PV is nowconsistently cheaper than new gas or coal-fired power plants based on levelized cost of electricity(LCOE) (Figure 2). Additional research points to the cost of debt financing for renewable powerprojects now consistently lower than that for fossil fuel projects in a number of markets.7 But againstall of the tremendous progress, there remain questions about the ability of current market design tomanage a huge scale-up of renewable power all over the world. Crucial to this report are questionsregarding policies that support an appropriate level of financial return to incentivise such investmentand whether there is sufficient transparency about the cost of capital in EMDEs.8Dollars per MWh (2019)Figure 2. Utility-scale solar PV LCOE under revenue support mechanisms: 2020 final investment decisions GT supercriticalSolar PV with revenue supportSource: IEA World Energy Outlook (2020)Kempa, K., Moslener, U., & Schenker, O. (2021). The cost of debt of renewable and non-renewable energy firms.Nature Energy, 6(2), 135-142. doi:10.1038/s41560-020-00745-x7Donovan, C., & Nuñez, L. (2012). Figuring what’s fair: The cost of equity capital for renewable energy in emerging markets.Energy Policy, 40, 49-58. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.06086

Under any scenario, energy investments will need to rise from 2020 levels to meet growing demand.The capital allocation for energy investments shifts dramatically in the SDS. Over the past five years,the share of energy supply investment devoted to fuel supply and power was evenly split. In the SDS,two-thirds of energy supply investments go towards electricity over the next two decades. Meetingsustainability goals points to the current level of investments for renewable power doubling to over 600 billion a year by 2030, with two-thirds of this from solar PV and wind, whose combined share inglobal generation rises to almost 30%. This scale-up will need to be accompanied by a range of cleanenergy technologies, including other renewables, especially hydropower, energy efficiency,and enabling infrastructures such as grids and storage.Figure 3. Global energy supply investment by sector in 2019 and 2020 compared with annual average investmentneeds 2025-30USD (2019) billionFuel supplyPower sector1 2001 00080060040020020192020Oil supplyCoal supply2025-30(STEPS)2025-30(SDS)Gas supplyBiofuel and biogas20192020Fossil fuel powerNuclear2025-30(STEPS)2025-30(SDS)Renewable powerElectricity networksSource: IEA World Energy Investment (2020)As decision-makers consider their responses, the current crisis may represent an opportunity to"build back better" and accelerate clean energy transitions. A number of governments and companieshave adapted rapidly to shifting market conditions by announcing ambitious diversification and net zerogoals, backed by investment plans to step up clean energy deployment. Realisation of all these net zerotargets is fully incorporated in the SDS modelling, alongside a large increase in ambition for countriesthat have not made such commitments, in order to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Suchintentions signal a growing recognition of the risks associated with inaction, but also of the changingfinancial proposition to investors. In the balance of this report we consider the evolution of renewableenergy in stock markets around the world and its relative performance to fossil fuel. In short, we cast aninvestor’s eye on the prospects for a global energy transition by examining the key building blocks of riskand return across the power sector.7

Analytical MethodsOur quantitative analysis calculates measures of risk and financial return for hypothetical investmentportfolios based on monthly observations. We also show how both segments perform in differentcredit and commodity regimes. The time series for the analysis is January 2011 – December2020, inclusive. We place equal weight on each portfolio constituent, regardless of their marketcapitalization. Therefore, each company has an equal contribution to the total return. This equalweight approach avoids single constituents dominating a portfolio's risk and return profile.Our sample was constrained by a minimum market capitalization threshold. Companies witha market cap below 200 million (at prevailing exchange rates) as of 31 December 2020 werenot included in the final data set. This threshold was set to capture the viewpoint of institutionalinvestors, who rarely invest in micro-and nano-cap companies. In addition, companies had to bein existence for at least three months. This portfolio construction rule was needed to avoid thedistortions from recent initial public offering (IPO) activity.Table 2. Market Capitalization for Global PortfoliosGlobal Market PortfoliosFossil FuelRenewable PowerAverage Market Cap in US dollars9,774,671,0004,445,873,000Median Market Cap in US dollars1,123,557,0001,144,475,000Source: The authors, based on Bloomberg data (2021)The constituents in the global fossil fuel portfolio have higher average and median marketcapitalization than the constituents in the global renewable power portfolio. The average marketcapitalization for the constituents in the global fossil fuel portfolio is over 9 billion, two timesgreater than the average in the global renewable power portfolio.The Bloomberg Industry Classification Systems (BICS) was used primarily to establishrepresentative portfolios for each regional grouping. The BICS classification is based on revenue,operating income, and segment assets as published in public reports and related company data.Our primary motive for employing the BICS is that it offers a clear separation of renewable energyfrom fossil fuel, within the energy industry. However, our fossil fuel portfolios do not differentiatefossil fuel companies who may be investing in clean energy or the carbon intensity of differentinvestments, which can shift (e.g. due to coal to gas switching in power) depending on theevolution of company strategies. Also, we excluded unclassified power utility companies underthe BICS, which contains utilities with mixed fossil fuel and renewable power assets.The total market for oil and gas far exceeds that for renewables. More than 80% of totalprimary energy demand in 2019 came from fossil fuel – oil, gas, and coal. Modern renewablesrepresented just 10% of total demand. In the SDS, the demand for renewable power would growstrongly in all regions by 2030, expanding more than fourfold in wind and nearly sevenfold forsolar PV compared with 2019. Despite this strong growth, and renewables accounting for morethan half of power generation by 2030, fossil fuel would still comprise over 70% of primary energydemand a decade from now, even under a sustainable pathway. Natural gas, in particular, seesa relatively stable market share in the near term, even as the contribution of coal (and to a lesserextent oil) decline in the global energy mix.8

Table 3. Overview of sub-sectors includedin our Fossil Fuel PortfolioTable 4. Overview of sub-sectors includedin our Renewable Power PortfolioSectorSub-sectorSectorSub-sectorFossil FuelExploration and Production (BICS)RenewablePowerRenewable Energy Equipment (BICS)Integrated Oils (BICS)Midstream – Oil & Gas (BICS)Oil & Gas Services and Equipment (BICS)Renewable Energy Project Development(BICS)Renewable Energy Generation (BICS)Coal Mining (BICS)Green RevenuesFossil Electric Generation (BICS)Climate RevenuesGas Utilities (BICS)YieldcosThe fossil fuel portfolio comprises seven BICS sub-sectors shown in Table 3. Unlike the previousreport, this time we included both gas utilities and fossil-fuel power generation companies.Three-quarters of the portfolio companies come from the oil, gas, and coal supply sectors, andthe rest from gas utilities and power generation. The United States leads the fossil fuel industrywith 139 companies, representing one-fourth of the global portfolio and around 50% of theadvanced economies portfolio. China and Canada also represent 126 and 48 companies in theglobal portfolio respectively.The renewable power portfolio consists of three BICS sub-sectors (Renewable EnergyEquipment, Renewable Energy Project Development, and Renewable Energy Generation) andthree non-BICS categories (Green Revenues, Climate Revenues, and Yieldcos). We includednon-BICS categories to capture the diversity of business models and activities for the renewablepower sector.–Green revenues are represented by publicly-listed companies with a net of minimum50% revenues from Renewable Energy Equipment, Renewable Energy ProjectDevelopment, and Renewable Energy Generation in the past three years.–Climate revenues are based on the HSBC Climate Solutions Database (HCSD). Thedatabase enables screening for markets based on their highest and lowest share ofclimate revenue as a proportion of macroeconomic variables, such as GDP. It helps toidentify rates of change in climate integration across markets. Based on HCSD data, weincluded five additional companies that were not already picked up by BICS screening.–Yieldcos are holding companies for operational renewable power projects.Although some storage and network companies are classified as renewable energy equipmentby BICS, they were excluded from our study portfolios, in recognition of the different risk andreturn characteristics of these assets. Nevertheless, with the deployment of variable renewables(solar PV and wind) at high shares increasingly dependent on the mobilization of grids andother enabling infrastructure to integrate new capacity, future research may need to considerrenewables in conjunction with those companies providing system flexibility, including throughgrids, storage, and demand response.Some of the largest renewables developers in today’s market are not included in our renewablepower portfolios due to either a relatively recent transition to renewable business or a highproportion of existing assets in fossil fuel. To capture the financial performance of suchcompanies, we selected five transition renewable companies and analyzed their historicalperformance against the market benchmark separately from our renewable power portfolios.9

We tracked 208 renewable equipment and power companies meeting the selection criteria.Around 40% of the portfolio companies come from the renewable energy equipment industryand 35% from the renewable energy generation. China has the largest number of companies inour global renewable power portfolio with 84 companies, representing over 40%. The United Statesfollows China with 17 renewable companies, followed by Canada, Germany, and India. ExcludingChina, a majority of renewable energy equipment companies comes from advanced economies,while the renewable energy generation companies are spread across both advanced economies,emerging market and developing economies, and China.Figure 4. Portfolio geographic compositions by domicile locationFossil FuelRenewable PowerGlobal MarketsOthers9%Asia Pacific39%Europe17%Others4%Global MarketsAsia Pacific61%NorthAmerica12%Europe23%North America35%Advanced EconomiesLatin America2%Advanced EconomiesNorth America62%Asia Pacific6%Asia Pacific18%Europe54%North America28%Europe30%Emerging Market andDeveloping EconomiesEmerging Market andDeveloping EconomiesOthers 8%Latin America 8%Asia Pacific59%Middle East 9%Others12%Asia Pacific76%Latin America12%Eurasia16%ChinaHong Kong17%ChinaMainlandChina83%Hong Kong12%Mainland China88%Our portfolios are categorized into four different geographies: global markets, advanced economies,emerging market and developing economies, and China. We used IEA regional and country groupswhen applicable. Companies were selected based on the country of domicile. The total return foreach company is calculated in the local currency to produce a unitless return. This means that FXfluctuations do not affect relative returns, and the portfolio behaves as if it were FX-hedged. Weemploy monthly rebalancing.10

Key Investment CharacteristicsRenewable power and fossil fuel companies have different characteristics, as illustrated by trendsin the metrics used to assess their underlying financial performance.Fig 16-20Fossil FuelRenewable PowerDividend yield4%Return on total 11-152016-20Fossil FuelRenewable Power0%2011-152016-20Fossil Fuel2011-150.02016-20Renewable Power2011-15201Fossil FuelSource: The authors, based on Bloomberg data (2021)Globally, renewable power companies are more leveraged than fossil fuel companies, in partdue to the more contracted nature of their business model, which can provide bond-like revenuestreams. The dividend yield for fossil fuel companies has remained higher than the yield forrenewable companies at around 3% compared to below 2%, though some fossil fuel companiescut dividends in 2020. The profitability of fossil fuel companies dropped in half (from 4% to 2%)with respect to return on total assets, while the performance of renewable companies improvedby three times.Fig 6Figure6. AdvancedAdvancedEconomiesssets011-15Fig 6Advanced EconomiesFigureGlobal 5. Global Markets – financial metrics1.02016-20wable PowerFig 7Emerging Market and Developing CountrEconomies – financial metricsDebt-to-EquityDividend 152016-20Fossil FuelRenewable Power0%2011-152016-202011-152016-20Fossil FuelRenewable PowerReturn on total assets6%-2%2011-15Fossil Fuel2016-202011-152016-20Renewable PowerSource: The authors, based on Bloomberg data (2021)Debt-to-Equity1.00.8In advanced economies, renewable power companies typically employ more leverage than fossil0.6fuelcompanies, which is also consistent with the global trend and reflects the more contracted nature0.4of remuneration. In both portfolios, the leverage ratio has remained stable amid the low-interest-rate0.2environment.0.0Renewable company dividend yields have remained around 2% over a decade, which is similar tothe S&P 500 dividend yield. Fossil fuel companies have also returned a higher share of their cash toshareholders.2011-152016-202011-15Fossil FuelRenewable PoMeanwhile, the trends in profitability have reversed in the past ten years, which are aligned with thestrong performance in the advanced economies renewable power portfolio. Over a decade, returnson assets for fossil fuel companies have deteriorated from 4% to below 2%, reflecting in part thelower demand and fuel price environment, while the performance of renewable companies hasedged upwards. Returns on assets for renewable companies were negative over 2011–15 due to thenegative net incomes in many renewable equipment companies.11

5-155-152016-202016-202016-20Fuell r0.0%0.0%0.0%2011-152011-152011-15 2016-202016-202016-20 2011-152011-152011-15 2011-152011-15 2016-202016-202016-20 ewableRenewableRenewablPFigure 7. Emerging Market and Developing Economies – financial 2011-152011-152016-202011-152016-202011-15 2016-202016-20 2011-152011-15 011-152011-15 2016-202016-202016-20 2011-152011-152011-15 PowerSource: The authors, based on Bloomberg data (2021)Leverage level in emerging market and developing economies remained the lowest in all regionsover 2011–2015, reflecting the lower level of development of corporate debt markets. That said,renewable companies have been able to increase their leverage in the past five years. Dividend yieldshave remained the highest for both fossil fuel and renewable companies compared to other portfolioregions, while fossil fuel companies have issued higher dividend yields than renewable companies.Fossil fuel companies offer a higher return on total assets than renewable companies, similar to theprofitability profile in other portfolio regions.Fig 8Figure 8. China– financial metricsChinaDebt-to-Equity2.01.5%Dividend yield5%1.54%1.0%3%1.02%0.5%0.50.0Return on total assets6%1%2011-152016-202011-152016-20Fossil FuelRenewable Power0.0%2011-152016-202011-152016-20Fossil FuelRenewable Power0%2011-15Fossil Fuel2016-202011-152016-20Renewable PowerSource: Analysis based on Bloomberg dataDividend yield10%Return on total assets8%6%We separatedChinese companies from the emerging market and developing economies due to theirhigh samplesize in both fossil fuel and renewable companies and unique characteristics compared4%to other2% regions. The Chinese energy market is characterized by strong government support todecarbonizethe domestic energy sector and enhance the affordability of electricity. In the past 6-20years,thegovernmenthasannouncedambitious renewable energy targets, adopted different policyuelRenewable PowerFossil FuelRenewable Powerincentive schemes for renewable power generation, and revised existing subsidies.The LCOE for solar PV and wind has declined with the expansion of renewable power generation,technology progress and on the back supportive policy schemes (e.g., expansion of competitivebidding schemes). However, this has also resulted in pressure on the profitability of some companiesin the value chain. Recent trade actions coming amid high levels of competition and persistentlylow margins in manufacturing have kept the pressure on the profitability of renewables equipmentcompanies in China, which represent over 50% of the renewables portfolio.12

Renewable companies in China show the highest leverage ratio among different regions andare around three times more leveraged than the average fossil fuel company. Both fossil fuel andrenewable companies offer a dividend yield of around 1%, the lowest among the portfolio regions.The profitability of fossil fuel companies has dropped modestly over a decade, offering a lower returnon total assets than renewable companies over 2016–20.Both the global fossil fuel and renewable power portfolios have expanded over the past decade, asmeasured by companies that have made initial public offerings (IPOs). Since 2013, public listing hasenabled a similar number of companies in each sector to access channels for financing at a greaterscale through the capital markets. There are, of course, geographic differences. The United Statesand China lead the largest number of IPO deals in global fossil fuel and renewable portfolios. In theglobal fossil fuel portfolio, the US accounts for over one-third of new IPOs, mostly from natural gasand shale industries. Followed by the United States, China represents almost 30% of new IPOs withcompanies from coal mining, power generation, and natural gas industries.More tha

1 IEA and CCFI (2020), Energy Investing: Exploring risk and return in the capital markets. IEA and CCFI. 2 IEA (2020), World Energy Outlook 2020. IEA. 3 IEA (2021), Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2020. IEA. 4 Steffen, B. (2020). Estimating the cost of capital for renewable energy projects. Energy Economics, 88, 104783. doi:10.1016/j.

Related Documents:

Investing in a Clean Energy Future: Solar Energy Research, Deployment, and Workforce Priorities. Solar Investment Supports the U.S. Clean Energy Revolution. Solar will play an important role in reaching President Biden's 2035 clean electricity goal - alongside other important clean energy sources, including onshore and offshore wind power .

Impact investing is a growing area of interest for investors. Impact investing is defined as investing made with the explicit intent to generate positive, measurable social and/or environmental effects in addition to a financial return. According to the Global Impact Investing Network, the impact investing universe represented more

on investing in companies whose products and services are inherently impactful. Ə Impact investing: Coined by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2007, impact investing describes sustainable investing strategies with the intention to deliver measurable impact. A key element of impact investing is investor contribution or additionality. This is

3.2 Investing in adopting and implementing accessibility standards 22 3.3 Investing in a disability-inclusive procurement approach 24 3.4 Investing in development and employment of access audits 26 Chapter 4: Drivers for and added value of investing in accessibility 29 4.1 Demographic factors driving the need for investing in accessibility 30

II. SuT SaINablE INVESTING FuNdamENTalS Clarification: Many terms are used in the sustainable investing discussion. In this paper, we use "sustainable investing" as an umbrella term and distinguish ESG integration from ESG-themed funds. A glossary of terms is provided on page 7. Sustainable investing is a framework for investors to examine

deliver a more equitable clean energy future by: Investing in American manufacturing and workers. Expanding access to energy efficiency and clean energy for families, communities and businesses. Delivering reliable, clean, and affordable power to more Americans. Building the technologies of tomorrow through clean energy .

Sustainability themed investing – Investment in themes or assets specifically related to sustainability (for example clean energy, green technology or sustainable agriculture). 4. Impact/community investing - Targeted investments, typically made in private markets, aimed at solving social or environmental problems. Impact investing includes community investing, where capital is specifically .

Part 2, Design – High Strength Steels was combined with Part 1, Design in 1993. Part 5, Special Types of Construction was combined with Part 1, Design in 2008. Part 10, Bearing Design, and Part 11, Bearing Construction, were combined into a new Part 5, Bearing Design and Construction in 2013.